"I think Hydrogen is a rare element" and other science facts.

[Faolyn]

Ok, but certainly the same logic applies to all the species traits then? Like if I want to have halfling that was raised in Underdark and has adapted to have dark vision, why cannot I have that? If every PC is an unique exceptional individual that doesn't need to conform what is normally possible to their species, then why the hell we even have dedicated rules splats for the species? Why not just have a bunch of traits and bonuses people can choose and can fluff however they wish?

Well, why not? Lots of games do racial templates you can alter just by paying a different cost, or say that race has no mechanical effect. And quite frankly, since so many species have darkvision in D&D, there's almost no point in caring about lighting in the first place--might as well say that either nobody has darkvision (which I believe Shadowdark does) or everyone can see in the dark.

But even in D&D, maybe a halfling could become exposed to Underdark radiation and gain darkvision. Or used a special concoction unknown to surface folks to obtain darkvision. Level Up does that with a couple of their Cultures--if you take the Deep Gnome, Deep Dwarf, or Shadow Elf cultures, you get darkvision. After all, "realistically," a subterranean people would just go blind and develop good hearing and smell, or tremorsense, or something like that, meaning that darkvision, especially the enhanced darkvision of many Underdark races, could be due to magical radiation or alchemical concoctions.

Just make the player give up another trait of equal value--which is no different than, if you're using point buy, deciding that putting that 15 in Strength means that you won't have as high a Dex or Int or whatever. "You can pick Darkvision but to balance things out, you won't have the Nimbleness trait. Because the part of your brain that was being used for that level of agility has been repurposed for enhanced vision."

 

[cranberry]

D&D physics aren't our physics. There's a lot of examples. I'm not going to dictate how someone wants to play the game, or tell them what their preferences are. You want Halflings to be unable to be played at your tables or have harsh limitations, have at it! And have fun!

But your OP was about shaming a player for not knowing the physics of hydrogen...

"When I asked him how the environmental catastrophe was averted, he gave me the "shocked Pikachu face".

So, realism does matter to some degree. Even to you.

Each person draws the line of their "suspension of disbelief" at different points.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Well, why not? Lots of games do racial templates you can alter just by paying a different cost, or say that race has no mechanical effect. And quite frankly, since so many species have darkvision in D&D, there's almost no point in caring about lighting in the first place--might as well say that either nobody has darkvision (which I believe Shadowdark does) or everyone can see in the dark.

But even in D&D, maybe a halfling could become exposed to Underdark radiation and gain darkvision. Or used a special concoction unknown to surface folks to obtain darkvision. Level Up does that with a couple of their Cultures--if you take the Deep Gnome, Deep Dwarf, or Shadow Elf cultures, you get darkvision. After all, "realistically," a subterranean people would just go blind and develop good hearing and smell, or tremorsense, or something like that, meaning that darkvision, especially the enhanced darkvision of many Underdark races, could be due to magical radiation or alchemical concoctions.

Just make the player give up another trait of equal value--which is no different than, if you're using point buy, deciding that putting that 15 in Strength means that you won't have as high a Dex or Int or whatever. "You can pick Darkvision but to balance things out, you won't have the Nimbleness trait. Because the part of your brain that was being used for that level of agility has been repurposed for enhanced vision."

Right. But then why have species as a mechanical splat at all? Why not just have a pool of traits to choose from? Or do you agree with me that if we accept the PC exceptionality axiom, this would be more logical way to do it?

 

[James Gasik]

It is possible for someone to want the game to be more realistic even in ways it never has been particularly. So yes, it absolutely can be about how realistic the game should be.

You forgot "in your opinion". Which is perfectly cromulent opinion to have, but not everyone feels the same.

 

[James Gasik]

But your OP was about shaming a player for not knowing the physics of hydrogen...

"When I asked him how the environmental catastrophe was averted, he gave me the "shocked Pikachu face".

So, realism does matter to some degree. Even to you.

Each person draws the line of their "suspension of disbelief" at different points.

More to the point, the hydrogen thing was a reference to a comic strip. For amusement.

My actual example was about the salinity of his world's oceans. And I didn't ridicule him for doing so- in his game world, maybe things work differently. That's fine.

Except he didn't see how there would be a problem with it by the rules of our world.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You forgot "in your opinion". Which is perfectly cromulent opinion to have, but not everyone feels the same.

"Possible" and "can be" cover that for me, but I'm happy to throw in the IMO if you need it for me not to be a hypocrite.

 

[James Gasik]

"Possible" and "can be" cover that for me, but I'm happy to throw in the IMO if you need it for me not to be a hypocrite.

Wasn't calling you a hypocrite. If I was, I'd have said so, and probably gotten a well-deserved drubbing from a mod for it.

In fact, I apologize for the post- you're correct, "possible" and "can be" are fine, it was just my reading of the sentence that made it sound like an absolute statement.

-

ANYWAYS, can we all move on from the old arguments about what is/should be in one of many RPG's? I know, I'm as much to blame for the sidetrack going on as long as it has, but this was about those times GM's thought they were on solid ground scientifically and were actually marching off a cliff, lol.

 

[billd91]

Right. But then why have species as a mechanical splat at all? Why not just have a pool of traits to choose from? Or do you agree with me that if we accept the PC exceptionality axiom, this would be more logical way to do it?

There are games with options like that… games that aren’t D&D. And that’s fine. D&D is doesn’t need to do it the way other games do it and other games don’t need to do it like D&D does.

 

[Clint_L]

The science mistake that always annoys me the most is when people are exposed to space and they either explode or insta-freeze or both. The almost complete vacuum will definitely do damage fast, especially if you didn't exhale first, but you aren't going to suddenly pop. And space isn't cold, per se, at least not as we think of cold on earth. It's just basically empty, so if you aren't exposed to a heat source (which could fry you instead) your body will slowly radiate heat until you hit almost absolute zero, but that will take hours. It's not like stepping into an ultra-cold blast freezer or something.

 

[Retros_x]

A lot of things in blockbuster movies don't even feel plausible in the movie. Like the Naboo thing from earlier. (And physics in Star Wars in in general now that I think of it, like the tiny star in episode 7, or how long it took Jedha to explode)

I highly doubt most people thought too much about it, my 12 year old self certainly did not in the cinema. I mean plausible enough for a cool action or cool setting. But maybe plausible is the wrong term.

James Wood described it in his famous slating review of "White Teeth" by Zadie Smith (something along the lines of): " A convincing impossibility ( a man levitating [or in this discussion a planet with water at its core]) is better than an unconvincing possibility (an islamistic terrorist group with acronym K.E.V.I.N.)"